TakeruK

I think this is a really tough choice!! Sorry to hear that. I think it's really up to you to determine what is more essential for your success during and beyond your PhD--is it the US school's department, or will it be your specific supervisor? I don't think many people can help you! But maybe others in your field might be able to speak to how much supervisor fit vs program fit matters.

Sure, getting in from the waitlist means you are not their top choice. But it's not like the school was like "ugh, now we have to start accepting from these losers in the waitlist". Remember that there are many more applications that did not make it onto the waitlist and many others on the waitlist that will not get offers. In my field, graduate admits happen at the 5% to 10% level. If you get in off the waitlist, it means you probably were in the top 10% to 20%, instead of the top 10% of applicants. It's not a bad thing at all--if the school is a program you are interested in, no one will know whether you got in from the waitlist or the first list.

Maybe it depends on field, but in mine, funding information always comes with the offer. In fact, it is usually the first thing mentioned because it's the most important! The first paragraph is usually "Congratulations, blah blah, you were selected as X out of Y applicants." Then the second paragraph provides funding information (and requirements). The following paragraphs then explain the program and academic requirements and perhaps information on a visit day. My field doesn't do "conditional offers" (i.e. you will be accepted provided X is met) other than the standard implicit condition that you must actually graduate (if you are currently enrolled). Unless you mean "conditional offer" as in you get the offer from the department but is still waiting Graduate School / University approval. In that case, we generally still get the funding info from the unofficial departmental admit letter.

Maybe you can email the students you've found and just say that you are considering working with Professor X at University Y in Department Z and ask if they would be willing to have a phone or Skype conversation with you about their experiences at University Y. Or if you are going to visit campus again, perhaps you can meet with them in person. This way is slightly less risky and you might be more likely to get honest answers because there is no written record of what each person said. I know I wouldn't be fully honest in an email to a stranger. There is still a chance that this conversation might get back to the professor but I think professors should understand people will ask around to learn information about them. After all, they can and sometimes do the same to find out about us. Of course, you should be careful to not ask leading questions like "What do you dislike about Prof X?" or "I heard a ton of bad things about Prof X, are they true??". Instead, ask questions like "What is it like working with Prof X?" or "What is the lab/group climate/dynamic like?" or specific questions relevant to your field/work. That way, even if the student tells Prof X about the conversation, they would say that the conversation was about the program/school/work dynamic, not that you were digging for dirt on a prof. I would also start with easier/softer questions before moving on to these types of questions.

It should be a factor if it matters to you. To me, this is really important. Not because I want to go out every week (I actually probably go out a little bit less than average) but because I want to be part of a department where the environment is collegial and friendly. I would not be happy in a place where everyone only talks to each other during the workday or are so independent that you never talk to some people. Or even worse, I would not want to be in a place where students are actively competing against each other! To me, it's really important to have friends in grad school that I want to hang out with outside of school/work and talk about things that are not school/work. I definitely assessed and considered the social setting and social dynamics between students when visiting schools and making my decision. I found that smaller departments (20-30 students) where we are all on one floor or in a few "big" offices tend to have the environment I'm looking for. I found that I didn't really like the environment in departments where it's 2-3 students per office, with maybe 2-3 offices per floor spread over many floors in one (or multiple) buildings. I did more social things when I first started to get to know more people and I think that's good. It seems like there will be a large group gathering/get-together on average 2-3 times per month, usually because it's someone's birthday, a holiday party, or just a party because it's been awhile since the last party.

Just wondering -- does the IRS have a hotline for tax questions? When I was filing Canadian taxes while living in the US for the first time, I was really really confused and the Canada Revenue Agency hotline had some very patient people that explained all of the rules to me, for free If the IRS provides a similar service, that might be a good free source of official information!

From my experience and from talking to others, there are very few fellowships that are tax free. Basically, the IRS considers any money you get that is not spent on tuition or other fees (books etc.) as taxable income. However, the right thing to do would be to talk to whoever issues tax forms at your school (HR?) and ask them to issue a tax form for this income. I had an internal first year fellowship (i.e. awarded by the school) and I got a 1042-S (http://www.irs.gov/uac/About-Form-1042S) which is a tax form for income paid to a foreign person, but I think my American friends received a similar form (but I don't recall the number). You might end up getting a W-2 for your fellowship, if it's paid for TA or RA work, for example. For more information about taxes and fellowships, see: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc421.html.

I think Sigaba is right to mention that we should always be aware of what the "norms" are in each field. However, although I can't speak for all of the physical sciences, my experience with the my field and other physical science fields is that people are changing the negative connotations that might come with such words. For example, we are taught to have "hooks" when we write our research proposals (especially for grants). When we learn how to give talks, we are taught to "sell" the story convincingly, or put the right "spin" on the it for the right audience. Understandably, some people are uncomfortable with such words because of the "used car salesman" vibe that comes along with it. However, modern usage in the sciences is not meant to swindle or trick the audience into believing your result but actually to effectively communicate your research's purpose and consequences. It's all about communication and providing the audience with what they are looking for, whether it is a reason to fund your research ("selling"), a reason to continue reading your proposal or to highlight how your proposal stands out from other work (a "hook"), or making sure you deliver context relevant information for the right audience ("spin"). For the last example, my research uses some advanced telescope technology to achieve the results, but if my audience is mostly theoretical, I'm deliver my presentation to highlight the physical consequences of my finding. But if I'm presenting to instrumentation scientists, I would "spin" this work as "look what we can achieve with nice instruments you built". That is, it is simply not enough to "just" be good at your work. You need to be good at your work and be competent in communicating it to other people. Some might say you have to be able to "sell yourself", which is another way of phrasing it, but I really think it's all about effective communication. What good are researchers if we can't tell others about our work? In my field, many professors are recommending this book, "Marketing for Scientists: How to Shine in Tough Times", as a guide for graduate students and young researchers on how to do all of this. The author is an astrophysicist who also writes country music as a hobby (initially) and as he developed that part of his career, he learned a lot about marketing. In the book, he translates the marketing skills learned in the music industry to academia. It also specifically addresses the discomforts academics might have about the "sleazy used car salesman" connotations of marketing related words. There are also special sessions on how to network in academia (and for jobs outside of academia) at the annual American Astronomical Society meetings. These terms are far from taboo in my field, and in fact, openly encouraged and addressed by our advisors as part of our graduate student training.

I just want to clarify and point out that in many schools, the policy is that you cannot date someone when they are your student, not just any student at the school! At my school, the policy is that you are discouraged from starting new relationships with current students in the class that you TA and that you should disclose all the existence of preexisting relationships to the professor if you are assigned a course in which your partner is taking (I don't think you have to disclose the identity -- you can just say a relationship exist and would be assigned to a different course if the prof/department deems necessary). Although I also think it is unethical (in most cases) to start a new relationship with a student in the course that you are TAing, simply dating a student is not explicitly against the policy (only discouraged). However, if unfairness occurs because of the relationship, then you'd definitely be violating policies.

Yes this is correct, you have to work with them to submit your application. So I think your assessment is also correct, that if you were one of the nominees they should have already reached out to you, so perhaps they are expecting you to come up with funds elsewhere. But I guess it won't hurt to ask!

Usually graduate orientation is run by the Graduate School, not your program, so yes some of their stuff might not wrap up until August--especially for professional masters programs. Sometimes people find out about a very last minute offer the week before classes begin (pretty rare though). Usually you get the super final official package after you submit your final transcripts, which they don't usually ask for until the summer because many candidates need to finish their degree first.

I think this should be okay. It might also depend on a lot of other things. There is a difference between "entry requirements" (visa) and status (F-1 or J-1). So it's possible, for example, to have a visa that expires immediately after entry but have F-1 or J-1 status for length of your degree. I think once you enter, the visa you used to enter doesn't matter anymore--you just have to maintain whatever legal status you have. However, since you would have entered with tourist status, I'm not sure if you need to exit the US and reenter with F-1 status or if checking in at the school can achieve this. I would recommend contacting your school's international office for advice.

Yes, if you are 100% certain that you will not attend their school, you should do this and withdraw your application.

If you know (with reasonable certainty) that you will attend OSU and no other school, regardless of their program or their offer, then the right thing to do is to withdraw all your applications and accept the OSU offer now. Why drag it out longer? Also, this will help the community in the sense that the committee can stop thinking about your application and make decisions on other people faster. Actions like this benefit academics everywhere -- including you (in future years, when you are at OSU, you would appreciate people already deciding not to attend OSU to withdraw their applications, so that you and the faculty there do not waste time on these candidates). But if you are still considering some of these schools, then don't accept OSU yet and wait to hear from the schools you are still considering. Withdraw applications only when you are certain you do not want to attend that school.

Some profs write letters without mentioning the school name but most of them just mention it once at the top of the letter so it's easy for them to change. When I was first applying for grad school I had no idea how this worked so I was telling my professors that I won't apply to a lot of schools so that they won't have to write a bazillion letters and they laughed and told me that they just change the name so applying to 1 school or 10 schools made almost no difference to them.

Writing the letter might take 1-2 hours. Changing the school name and uploading them seems to take about 5 minutes. I know this because some of the schools email you when they receive a LOR and on the day my prof decided to send them, I got emails spaced about 5 minutes apart from each school saying they received the letters. Also, don't underestimate your professors! 60s are not that old and the Internet has been around for 20+ years now.

You mention factors like weather/family and I think those are important too, but you didn't list them in your description above. I agree with MathCat that funding should just be "is it enough?" because unless you are making more than $40k/year as a grad student, it's not really worth choosing a program based on funding. (i.e. saving a few thousand per year = maybe $10,000 to $15,000 total over the degree, but the value of a better degree is much more than this). From the information you gave, it looks like Program 3/4 is the best. Another thing to consider is the resources available at each program for you. This means you often have to look at US News ranking too (i.e. not just field specific). For example, I am at a school that is highly ranked in both my field and in US News, and this has helped me greatly. We get tons of top notch researcher wanting to visit and give talks and I get to meet all of them. My group is well funded, I get all the equipment I need and I get to travel to lots of conferences to present my research and make new connections. On the other hand, there was another program that is very well ranked in my field but not well ranked overall. This program was a close second because while I would get the training I needed there, they have a lot less funding available for my research. That is, I would sacrifice a little bit of research fit in order for the ability to do it well (and the ability to make good connections while in grad school). There is no point in working on a topic you absolutely love if you are limited by practical means of doing a good job on it. I also want to echo MathCat's second suggestion of choosing advisor fit over research fit too--again, I've seen and experienced that grad student happiness depends so much on advisor-student relationship and a bad relationship/fit could easily ruin a good research fit.

The difference is that in many states (e.g. California) an out-of-state American will become a California resident after 1 year living in the state. In fact, for American students, many public California schools will only pay the difference in out-of-state tuition for year 1--if you do not gain in-state residency after the first year, you pay the non-resident tuition out of pocket. International students, on the other hand, can never become in-state residents no matter how long they stay. This is a large part of why we cost so much more. I'll respond to the parts I bolded: First, I went to the US because for my field, the US does it way better. This field was born in the 1950s basically in the United States. The US has the resources to carry out exciting and cutting edge research and this is where I will learn how to be the best planetary scientist I can be. Also, because of the above, most Canadians in my field have PhDs from US schools. I agree with you that I could become an expert in Canada too, which is why I only applied to the top US schools -- i.e. places that provide me with opportunities that Canada cannot provide. Many other international students feel this way too, so now you have only the best students from foreign countries applying to already the most selective (best) programs in the US. This self-selection makes it very competitive to get a grad school spot as an international student. To the other bolded comment, I completely agree. My visa status requires me to return to Canada for at least 2 years after finishing my status. The United States government is basically using American dollars to pay to train me and then sending me away. Many of my American friends think this is a silly setup and wasteful! I'm not sure why US Immigration is so against foreign students immigrating and staying and as you say, paying back into the system. My time as a foreign student is explicitly excluded from time earned towards residency etc. On the other hand, Canada actively encourages PhD students to become residents and stay! You can become a permanent resident (i.e. green card) after 2 years into a PhD program (this is usually year 4 of grad school since you do a 2 year masters prior to a 3-4 year PhD). There is a special immigration pathway made especially for foreign PhD students so that we 1) retain talent and 2) allow others to "pay back" into the system. Now why would the US have it the opposite way? That is, why bother accepting international students at all? Part of it is for prestige--even if international students don't stay, they will come back to their home countries with great things to say about their wonderful hosts. Another part may be for diversity of ideas--while international students are present, they can share different perspectives. And finally, part of it is just playing nice with your neighbours. American students go abroad to other countries for schools and exchanges, and in order to keep good relationships, America also need to host international students and reciprocate.

I drove a old sedan (2002) in snowy Eastern Canada for a couple of years. I'd recommend getting snow tires on them (all-weather tires are good for rain but not snow). There are plenty of non-SUVs in winter conditions so I don't think there's any need to change to a SUV! However, you'll have to take extra steps to protect your vehicle. For example, getting an anti-rust spray on the undercarriage is a good idea (snowy roads get salted and then when you drive over them, salted ice is kicked up into your car and makes it susceptible to rust!)

I don't really agree, but this might be a field dependent thing? $30k/year is the standard for my field I think. We had some visiting students ask about the stipend here and mention that most programs in our field are actually offering more now (our stipend last increased to $30k/year in 2013). But the number doesn't really matter. The actual thing that matter is whether or not the stipend is enough. Most schools in my field usually offer a stipend that is enough to cover all basic living expenses plus another $3000 or so per year. I would say that in my field, if you are looking at an offer that is not at least this much, I would strongly advise you to reconsider the offer and only take it if you think there is some other benefit that outweighs a below-average financial offer.

Not always, I received many stipend offers that would be enough for a single graduate student to live very well and even buy homes, or for a graduate student to support a partner on very modest living conditions (if this was not the case, then no J-2s will ever be issued). Of course, these very modest living conditions are usually not ideal and this is why J-2s are allowed to gain work authorization so that the couple can have better living conditions. The minimum income condition for J-2s is to ensure that foreign students are able to bring in their family and support them without relying on government aid, not that the graduate student family is actually expected to live off the grad student stipend only.

I used prepaid in Canada but now I am on a "contract". It's not really a contract because my provider (T-Mobile) does not require me to stay on their service for X number of months etc. It's really a "postpaid" service, that is, I pay a monthly rate for a certain amount of service and if I go over, I pay extra charges. In the US, it doesn't matter who originates the call, you pay for the time you spend talking on the phone. Sometimes you can set up special deals like a certain set of US numbers are free (usually those numbers have to be on the same provider). Other plans might have different "buckets" of minutes -- you might get a smaller amount for "daytime" minutes (usually during business hours Mon-Fri) and another larger amount for evenings/weekends. My wife and I are on a family plan with T-Mobile. We pay $80/month for both of us and we get unlimited minutes (this used to be 1000 minutes but they changed our plan), unlimited text, 1GB each of 4G data and unlimited 3G data. We don't really need the minutes--each of us probably talk on our phones for like 10-20 minutes per month. But we use a lot of data and text messaging, so this is better than prepaid. Another nice thing about this family plan is unlimited international roaming so when we are traveling (or visiting home in Canada), we can use 2G or 3G data for free, with no limits! And if we have to make calls in another country, the rate is something like 20 cents / minute.

Actually, in all the cases where I hear about graduate students serving and voting on admissions committees, it has been a top 10 university. And I would say these programs are definitely "normal", not some weird edge case. Of course, they are not inviting a first year graduate student to serve on this committee! These students will be established scholars in their field and have earned the respect of the faculty in the department. Some of these students might have supervised senior undergrads directly themselves. They will most likely be getting their PhDs in a few months. So it's not surprising that some senior graduate students have as much a say in admissions than professors, since it's not like their opinion is completely useless until the second they get a PhD, then they magically gain all this insight!

This might just be pedantic now, but even in fields where you are not admitted to a specific group, you would still have some kind of research focus (experiment vs. theory, for example). Admissions committees might still want balance in factors such as research interests, diversity, or preparation (in multi-disciplinary fields like planetary science, maybe they don't want a cohort that are all physicists, or all chemists, or all geologists etc.), just to name a few.